Why are the fighters from the first half othe 1900s looked as Gods

We're singing the same song machine I agree with what you were saying but there are a lot of people who can't over the many losses that Pep, Robinson, Moore, Armstrong, etc. had even though their overall records were great in their prime. Going 128-1 against good competition is unthinkable today.

You do have to take into account that at his peak Robinson went 128-1, being 40-0 as a lightweight and a welterweight when he lost to middleweight Jake LaMotta whom he beat 5 out of 6 times, and going another 90 fights unbeaten until the loss to Randy Turpin which he avenged. Archie Moore went 53-2 from 1952 to 1960, losing only to two heavyweight champions Marciano and Patterson. Pep started out his career by being undefeated for 62 fights until losing a close decision to the lightweight champion. He then went 70+ fights unbeaten until losing to Sandy Saddler. Armstrong went 59-1 from 1936-1940, losing only once controversially to the lightweight champion Lou Ambers. You can't ignore the losses these men had while past their prime or starting out but you also can't ignore the work they got done while at their best. We're singing the same song machine

Giving old fighters their due and respect is one thing, putting them on a pedestal and making them out to be invincible is another. It's as if there's some unwritten rule where people aren't allowed to talk bad about them. That's what irritates the shit out of me. G, how r u doin man? the fighters u listed on ur list, ur all time faves & ur current ones are relatively contemporary fighters.... when u talk boxing to ur children, or even grandchildren, im pretty sure u will bring ur all-time/current faves into the discussion as well & perhaps hold them in higher regard than ur kids' would be faves... i wonder how would u feel if one of ur kids bash james toney in favor of the current great...

Can someone explain some things to me? I currently just started to box, but have learned a crap load. Haven't learned anything about the weight of gloves; which this question concerns. You know the dude with the hat and the cigar, usually on ESPN, think he was a writer at some point. Guys like him and other fans of old, older fighters usually comment on the skill and POWER of the guys back in the early 1900's. If a guy back then, with their ridiculous KO power, put on todays gloves... would that still happen? I know that their gloves were barley anything then. Probably why there was so many KO's Is the power hugely over rated for older fighters due to the gloves?

Go back and really watch all those fights and then tell us what you think. Some of these guys went 40 rounds with tiny gloves without all the information we have about sport science today. You can say guys today are more technical or whatever but the old school fighters had serious huevos, don't doubt it.

Giving old fighters their due and respect is one thing, putting them on a pedestal and making them out to be invincible is another. It's as if there's some unwritten rule where people aren't allowed to talk bad about them. That's what irritates the shit out of me. Speak your mind. It's the same about not speaking badly about your elders. Forget that. Say what you have to say. That said, there is also this newbie view that everything today is better...everything. I disagree.

Henry Armstrong Willie Pep

When there were no tv's and radios all you could do was either watch it or read it in the newspaper and the journalists well...

By the 40s and 50s technique began to take on its current form and many skilled, modern fighters appeared on the scene. Dempsey up through the late 30s can perhaps be seen as the "formative" years. Prior to that things were quite a bit different with the incredible number of rounds and altered fight conditions.

Rating old timers against current fighters is always tricky. One thing you can't do is simply look at numbers and decide who is or isn't a great fighter. Henry Armstrong lost over 20 fights as did Archie Moore. Willie Pep lost 11 Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 etc etc. They all lost fights in their peak so does that make them bad fighters or the people who beat them greater? Of course not. They fought in the era where fighters kept busy and fought everyone and hopefully got a shot at holding the one title which was on offer. Generally they could realistically only fight for 2 or 3 titles. You do have to take into account that at his peak Robinson went 128-1, being 40-0 as a lightweight and a welterweight when he lost to middleweight Jake LaMotta whom he beat 5 out of 6 times, and going another 90 fights unbeaten until the loss to Randy Turpin which he avenged. Archie Moore went 53-2 from 1952 to 1960, losing only to two heavyweight champions Marciano and Patterson. Pep started out his career by being undefeated for 62 fights until losing a close decision to the lightweight champion. He then went 70+ fights unbeaten until losing to Sandy Saddler. Armstrong went 59-1 from 1936-1940, losing only once controversially to the lightweight champion Lou Ambers. You can't ignore the losses these men had while past their prime or starting out but you also can't ignore the work they got done while at their best.

A quick glance at Battling Nelsons record shows me that he in the 4 quarter of 1908fought: Oct.3 1908, 12 rounds 8 days later, 10 rounds 6 days later, 12 rounds 2 days later, 6 rounds 6 days later, 15 rounds 12 days later, 10 rounds 4 days later, 9 rounds 15 days later, 10 rounds 5 days later, 6 rounds 4 days later, 10 rounds 11 days later, 10 rounds 3 days later, 10 rounds 4 days later, 10 rounds and on new years eve (just to round of the year...) 20 rounds. That's 150 professional rounds in one quarter year! Wow, that's incredible. How can you not see these dudes as immortal.

It's not about compairing them to tdays fighters, it's more about giving them their just due. Fighters back then fought and trained under terrible circumstances. They got paid nothing and had to fight 2-3 times a month, sometimes more. The gloves were like nothing we would ever see today, these guys were real tough men. There were no standing 8, no neutral corner rule. Respect is what is due to the old timers because they did it first and if it wasn't for them, boxing wouldn't be what it is today. A quick glance at Battling Nelsons record shows me that he in the 4 quarter of 1908fought: Oct.3 1908, 12 rounds 8 days later, 10 rounds 6 days later, 12 rounds 2 days later, 6 rounds 6 days later, 15 rounds 12 days later, 10 rounds 4 days later, 9 rounds 15 days later, 10 rounds 5 days later, 6 rounds 4 days later, 10 rounds 11 days later, 10 rounds 3 days later, 10 rounds 4 days later, 10 rounds and on new years eve (just to round of the year...) 20 rounds. That's 150 professional rounds in one quarter year!

It's not about compairing them to tdays fighters, it's more about giving them their just due. Fighters back then fought and trained under terrible circumstances. They got paid nothing and had to fight 2-3 times a month, sometimes more. The gloves were like nothing we would ever see today, these guys were real tough men. There were no standing 8, no neutral corner rule. Respect is what is due to the old timers because they did it first and if it wasn't for them, boxing wouldn't be what it is today.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. Rating old timers against current fighters is always tricky. One thing you can't do is simply look at numbers and decide who is or isn't a great fighter. Henry Armstrong lost over 20 fights as did Archie Moore. Willie Pep lost 11 Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 etc etc. They all lost fights in their peak so does that make them bad fighters or the people who beat them greater? Of course not. They fought in the era where fighters kept busy and fought everyone and hopefully got a shot at holding the one title which was on offer. Generally they could realistically only fight for 2 or 3 titles. You need to factor in nutrition, training regimes the fact that fighters didn't learn their trade in the amateurs such as in recent times. They learnt their trade by fighting and by winning and losing. Also fighters have the technology to study each other better these days and come up with a fight plan. There was also less pressure on having a pristine record, nowadays a fighter who has 3 losses on his record will rarely fight for a world title. I believe Henry Armstrong lost 3 out of his first 4 fights. Many fighters pre 1960's used to have 100 to 200 fights. There were a lot of good fighters in those days who never got a shot at the few titles on offer. Nowadys I believe that any good fighter will at least hold a version of a title at some time in their career. This can then inflate the record of other fighters by showing that they have beaten 10 world champions at some point. When I look at a fighter like Jack Johnson I see a fighter who was 30 years ahead of his time and also a big man physically of that era. I would imagine had he been born 100 years later he would have been bigger physically, fitter and with the information that television gave him as clever a fighter and I would be suprised if he would not hold a version of the Heavyweight title now. But if you simply look at an old film of him and compare him with a modern day heavy he will not look as impressive. That said old timers do have a tendency to pick out names out of a history book, I have seen 100's of old fight films and the quality of many especially pre 1930's is poor. Harry Greb is rightly regarded as an ATG but this opinion can only come from reading his record and accounts from the time there is no existing fight film of him. Any comparison of him and modern fighters is impossible. I think all in all ATG's of any era would enjoy the advantages or suffer the disadvantages of moving to another era. Anyhow that is a few of my rambling thoughts on this.

an argument over there at "boxing history" regarding an hypothetical fight against PBF & battling nelson prompted me to do a bit of studying... old skool fighters like BN are HOF inductees for a reason... the era they fought at were quite demanding... they were dealing not only with the high level of opposition, but the rules of the sport of boxing @ the time... imagine BN fighting fellow HOF joe gans for 42 brutal rounds! this with 5 oz gloves and no mouthpieces! WTF?! the fight lasted for over 2 hours & was held outdoors were the temperature were a little over 100 degrees! damn it... it was like watching the israel vasquez vs rafael marquez trilogy in just one sitting... u cant help but be awed by these old fighters man... but as great as they were, i enjoy watching our fighters of today more... i can relate with them better...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/samuel_L_Jackson.gif

yea they basically fought with mitts back then

if you look at the names of the fighters records back in the days you will see that all or most of the top fighters faced each others and it didnt matter if it was recorded or not they really faced the best of the best and the pay was shitty!!fighters today cherry pick their oponents and claim they are the best!!!!

Fighters are always treated better over time.